Senate takes up articles of Impeachment. TRANSCRIPT: 1/16/20, Hardball w/ Chris Matthews.

Chris Van Hollen, Nadeam Elshami, Peter Baker, Betsy Woodruff Swan, Frank Figliuzzi, Caroline Fredrickson, Susan Page

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: If you can’t catch it live on Sunday, please

consider DVRing it just like we hope you DVR THE BEAT every night. In fact,

you can do it right now just before HARDBALL.


I’ll see you tomorrow at 6:00 P.M. Easter. And as mentioned, HARDBALL with

Chris Matthews starts now.


CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Can the Trump defenders handle the truth? Let’s



Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews in Washington.


Today marked a solemn beginning to the Senate’s impeachment trial of

President Donald Trump. For the first time or just the third time actually

in American history, the members of that historic body lifted their right

hands as the chief justice of the Supreme Court swore them to be impartial.


Yet, amid the pomp and circumstance the day showcased a real tension

between form and function. We saw the form today, but the function of a

trial is to get to the truth. And that prospect is in question tonight.

With the new revelations from Lev Parnas, it’s becoming harder for the

Senate to ignore the new rush of evidence against the president. That’s

because as Rudy Giuliani’s right-hand man, Parnas was central to the crime

itself, not an incidental bystander.


And as Parnas confirmed to Rachel Maddow last night, all their efforts were

aimed at Joe Biden.





Biden and also Rudy had a personal thing with the Manafort stuff, the black

ledger. That was another thing that they were looking into. But it was

never about corruption, it was never, it was strictly about Burisma, which

included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.




MATTHEWS: Well, it should be noted that Parnas still faces serious criminal

charges and was arrested while trying to leave the country.


And while his allegations might still be corroborated, the trove of

documents he’s provided to Congress is harder to dispute. Among those

papers, Giuliani’s letter to Zelensky contradicts the defense that Trump’s

quest for dirt in Ukraine was part of the U.S. effort to root out

corruption. As Giuliani said, just to be precise, I represent him as a

private citizen, that him being the president, not as the president of the

United States.


Most explosive is that Parnas says he personally relayed an ultimatum to

the incoming administration over in Ukraine, announce the investigation of

Biden or Vice President Pence will not attend Zelenky’s inauguration. And

here is what Parnas says he told an aide of Zelinsky in May.




PARNAS: I told him that if he doesn’t – the announcement was the key at

that time because of the inauguration that Pence would not show up, nobody

would show up to his inauguration.


RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Unless he announced an investigation into Joe

Biden, no U.S. officials, and particularly Vice President Mike Pence would

not come to the –


PARNAS: Particularly Mike Pence.


MADDOW: I believe it was the following day that, in fact, Vice President

Pence’s visit to the inauguration was cancelled?


PARNAS: It was after my phone call.


Obviously, when Pence cancels, they get a word that Pence is not coming. So

now they realize that what I was telling was true.




MATTHEWS: Well, in his interview last night, Parnas so implicated Attorney

General Bill Barr among others, and his documents show he communicated

regularly with numerous Trump allies, revealing how expansive this scheme

really was.


Amid all of this, Senator Susan Collins of Maine today issued her clearest

statement yet about possible witness testimony. She said that once

arguments have been made, quote, it is likely that I would support a motion

to call witnesses at this point in the trial. That’s a big development.


I am joined right now by Peter Baker, New York Times White House

Correspondent, Betsy Woodruff, of course – Betsy Woodruff Swan, Politics

Reporter for The Daily Beast, and Frank Figliuzzi, former Assistant

Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI.


Peter, I want you first here. The solemnity of today’s occasion was very

much a ritual, it’s almost as a sacrament today, watching it the way the

chief justice was sworn in and how he sworn in all those senators, all

hundreds of them, practically, I think they were all there with their hands

in the air all taking the oath of office. And yet there is a question

whether form is going to lead to function. Are we going to get truth? Are

we going to get witnesses and documents to fill the vacuum of information

so we can have a real trial?



that’s a great question. Think you’re right. The solemnity of the moment

was striking, it was powerful. And the arrival of the chief justice and the

swearing of that oath really brought home to everybody who was there in the

chamber including all 100 senators that this is a serious moment and a

serious issue under our Constitution. That doesn’t mean suddenly they are

not going to be political or partisan. It doesn’t mean that they have

suddenly given up the point of view they brought onto the floor. They may

swear to do impartial justice, but the truth is all 100 are partial in some

fashion or another. It’s a political process after all.


And I think that you’re right, that Senator Collins saying she wants to

hear witness is important. We’ll see if there are enough other Republicans

that agree with that. Lev Parnas’ comments and revelations underscore the

gaps in the story we know so far. You can say the maybe House Democrats

should have spent more time on the investigation, you can say maybe they

were thwarted by the president of the United States who tried to block

them. But either way, there are questions we haven’t gotten answered yet.


And the biggest question is whether the Senate will try to answer those.


MATTHEWS: Well, this may be too metaphysical, but I’m going to throw it at

you, Peter. What do you mean by impartial when everybody is voting party

line? And I’m thinking of the recount vote in 2000 where the same ballot

would come up and one person would say, oh, that’s Gore on there, and the

other person is saying, no, that’s Bush on there, What does impartial mean

when it’s purely partisan?


BAKER: Yes It’s a funny thing to – it’s funny to ask these senators to be

impartial when, of course, they’re not. I mean, look, the history of this

is these are not regular jurors, they’re not excluded because of bias. For

instance, in the Andrew Johnson trial, his son-in-law was a senator who

voted to acquit his father-in-law. Another senator would have become

president had Andrew Johnson been convicted because there was no vice

president at that time, and he would have been the next line in that order

of succession at that time.


In the Clinton trial, you had Senator Schumer who had already voted on the

articles of impeachment as a member of the House, then he got elected to

the Senate and then cast judgment on the very same articles he had already

voted on.


Tim Hutchinson was a member of the Senate, even though his brother was a

House manager at the same time.


So there is no such thing as a conflict of interest that gets these

senators off the hook, if you will. They are partial. They do come at this

with a political perspective and other biases.


But I think taking the oath does remind them at least for one day, anyway,

they have an obligation to go beyond their party to at least consider and

think about what they’re up to and what’s at stake here. And what’s at

stake here is the very nature of our constitutional system, accountability,

separation of powers and, you know, how we run our democracy.


MATTHEWS: Thank you so much, Peter, despite you were here last time, so

it’s good to have your perspective. You were here during the Clinton



Anyway, despite growing evidence, in the contrary, President Trump

repeatedly insisted today that he doesn’t know Lev Parnas. He doesn’t know





REPORTER: What is your response to Lev Parnas who says that your efforts in

Ukraine were all about 2020? You just wanted Joe Biden out? What’s your




don’t know Parnas other than I guess they had pictures taken, which I do

with thousands of people.


I don’t know him at all. I don’t know what he’s about. I don’t know where

he comes from. I know nothing about him.


But I can tell you this –


REPORTER: He described a situation that was more than just taking pictures,

Mr. President. He says that –


TRUMP: I don’t know him. I don’t believe I’ve ever spoken to him.


REPORTER: He was with Giuliani while you were on the phone with Giuliani,

and he said that –


TRUMP: I don’t believe I’ve ever spoken to him.




MATTHEWS: Well, responding to the president, Parnas’ lawyer tweeted a video

showing Parnas right there with the president of the United States. There

he is, very recognizable, those two gentleman. There is also an email

showing that the president gave his former lawyer the okay to work for



While Trump’s current attorney, Jay Sekulow, wrote John Dowd saying, the

president consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas.


Betsy, this stuff goes back to the old stuff of the communists, the

hearings back in the early ’50s. I mean, you don’t say you don’t know

somebody as your defense when it’s clear you do know them. You can argue

about whether you’re a communist or not or (INAUDIBLE) or not, but don’t

say you don’t know somebody because that’s how you get perjury charges

against. That’s how you end up in prison.


Why is this president completely denying somebody he clearly does know?

What’s the point?



unusual. I spoke with Lev Parnas this afternoon here in Manhattan. And we

specifically talked about the fact that President Trump has now said that

he doesn’t know him, as well as other sort of issues that informed Parnas’

confidence about – frankly about going public, including your first on

this network, on Maddow’s show.


Parnas told me that some contributing factors to the reason that he now is

speaking out publicly, one, of course, was the fact that the president said

he doesn’t know him. Parnas is emphatic that that’s a lie.


But in addition to that, he also told me that the silence from some of his

former friends was really galvanizing for him. Over the course of the

entire Ukraine situation, he worked really closely with Rudy Giuliani as

well as with a husband/wife legal team in Washington, Joe DiGenova and

Victoria Toensing.


And Parnas said that when he got out of jail after he was arrested on

campaign finance charges, he realized that none of those folks had spoken

out in his defense. He told me these are three lawyers who are often very

confident, engaging to defend controversial people on T.V. They’re not

media shy. But in his case, Parnas said they were radio silent. He said it

felt like his family had abandoned him. And that’s part of the reason that

he’s gone public now.


And, of course, his going public is a key moment in this entire impeachment

saga because it’s really amped up the pressure on Senate Republicans to

potentially vote in favor of having witnesses in the impeachment trial.

Whether or not that trial has witnesses, of course, is a definitive issue

in how this impeachment process moves forward.


MATTHEWS: Did he take any heat last night after being on Rachel’s show?


SWAN: He hasn’t heard from them. It’s been radio silence. Giuliani has made

a few comments to reporters. Giuliani reportedly has said that he feels bad

for Parnas and that he thinks he’s a liar. But that’s a dramatic change

from someone who was working with this person multiple days a week, who was

traveling with him, who was in constant contact with him. All of a sudden,

as soon as somebody gets arrested, to turn around and say, oh, well, he got

charged with a crime, he must be a liar.


If anything, criminal defense attorneys are the people who are supposed to

be the least likely to assume that just because the Justice Department

makes an allegation means it’s true. But in this case, that’s part of the

reason, as Lev described it to me, that he felt so surprised by what he

characterized as real abandonment.


MATTHEWS: Let me go to Frank Figliuzzi. Frank, it does remind me of Valachi

opening up the whole map of the mob of the Cosa Nostra. But here’s a guy

coming in as part of the crime. He wasn’t a bystander. He’s not somebody’s

friend. He’s somebody’s relative. He was the guy doing the business. He was

the translator in Russian for Rudy Giuliani and all this dirty business.

How powerful is this evidence that he’s brought forward in document and

also in public testament on television now?



Yes. Parnas has become a poster boy for why the Senate needs to consider

witnesses in the impeachment trial. He is Exhibit A for the argument that

not only do we need witnesses, but we need the Senate to consider new

evidence as it developed during the trial. Americans know what a trial

looks like, they know what a real trial looks like. And a real trial is

when you have witnesses and you have corroboration.


So it’s not only Parnas that needs to testify, but it’s all the people that

he’s pointing us toward. He’s talking about Pence. He’s talking about

Giuliani. He’s talking about Barr. We need to hear from him and let the

American people and the Senate consider his objectivity and his

credibility. If he’s not credible, so be it.


But, Chris, I can’t remember 25 years in the FBI when I had to put an Eagle

Scout on the stand as the lead witness in a criminal trial. You don’t get -

- it doesn’t work that way. These are exactly the people you need to hear

from, because, as you said, he was in the thick of it.


MATTHEWS: Well, to your point, here is what Parnas said when asked if Vice

President Pence knew why his trip to Ukraine for Zelensky’s inauguration

was canceled?




MADDOW: Do you know if Vice President Pence was aware that that was the

quid pro quo, that that was the trade and that that, in fact, is why is

inaugural visit was called off?


PARNAS: I’m going to use a famous quote by Mr. Sondland, everybody was in

the loop.




MATTHEWS: Well, according to Parnas, you just saw there, everybody,

including Attorney General Bill Barr.




MADDOW: Did Rudy Giuliani tell you he had spoken to the attorney general

specifically about Ukraine?


PARNAS: Not only Rudy Giuliani. I mean, Victoria and Joe, they were all

best friends. I mean, Barr was – Attorney General Barr was basically on

the team.




MATTHEWS: Well, last night a spokesperson for Attorney General Barr called

Parnas’ allegation 100 percent false.


But let me go back to Peter on this. Peter, it bothers me when public

officials play the role of flax when you have one of these cases. I mean, I

don’t know why somebody working in the Justice Department has the job of

putting out something as nonsensical, he doesn’t know this guy, he was not

in the loop when you clearly know they’re just covering for somebody in not

quite a criminal case but certainly a political scandal, public officials

doing this for their living.


BAKER: Right, yes. I think the preview, what we’ve seen, unfortunately, in

the last few years is that there is no sense of the Justice Department

being a neutral actor anymore. The president himself thinks the Justice

Department ought to be his function on his behalf basically as much as the

country’s. He’s, you know, repeatedly crossed over lines, other presidents

saw there. And so I think that the problem is there are credibility issues

when you have a Justice Department statement at this point.


MATTHEWS: How do we know so much more than the senators are intended to

know? The way this Senate so-called trial is being cooked up, put together,

confected, whatever the word, they’re not going to be able to hear from

live witnesses. They’re not going to hear documents from documents, which

are appearing in other papers right now. They’re not technically – like

they’ve got blinders on them, these senators. They’re not supposed to know

what we know, what we are talking about now. This is the craziest trial in

the world.


Everybody in the country knows what’s going on. Everybody else is making a

judgment based upon all the information available. But senators are told,

no, you can’t have that. Mitch McConnell says no new witnesses, no new

documents. This is just going to be an argument, like a British-style

debate, just rhetoric back and forth. That’s what Mitch seems to want, a

rhetorical debate.


BAKER: Yes. I mean, look, these senators won’t be recused. It’s not like

they won’t be watching Rachel Maddow’s show or seeing articles in the

newspaper. But you’re right, if you don’t end up having – not just having

witnesses, it’s having witnesses who have apparently a testimony to give,

evidence to give that we haven’t heard. John Bolton, of course, comes to

mind, the president’s former national security adviser. And we’ve heard

from other witnesses that he objected in the Ukraine pressure campaign as a

drug deal and thought that Rudy Giuliani was kind of a hand grenade that

was going to blow up.


Well, we haven’t heard from him either on a public interview much less in a

House hearing or a Senate trial what he talked about with the president of

the United States about this. Did the president order him to suspend the

aid to ukraine explicitly in order to get information about the Democrats

that will be harmful or did he not? We don’t know. And to have John Bolton

offer to testify and then have nobody take him up on that, it means that

you’re leaving money on the table, in effect, you’re leaving information on

the intentionally undiscovered and we’ll have to wait until he puts his

book out, I suppose. But that will be long after the trial is over.


MATTHEWS: Well, if we don’t get this testimony and we don’t get these

documents, this is going to be, what they say in New England (ph), is a

Fosse (ph). This is going to be a Fosse (ph).


Peter Baker, thank you, Betsy Woodruff Swan and Frank Figliuzzi.


Coming up, the Democrat’s case for impeachment may have just gotten a

little stronger. The independent Government Accountability Office just

confirmed today that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding

critical military aid from Ukraine. Does this crank up the pressure any

higher for those Republican senators to allow for witnesses to be called?

After all, we’re getting new evidence that matters.


One of the jurors, by the way, on the Democratic side joins us next.


Plus, will the GOP put loyalty to Trump above the oath of impartiality? You

tell me. What can be coming down with a showdown of rules and witnesses?

What’s it going to look like, this big fight in the next couple of days?


And what kind of role will Chief Justice John Roberts play in the trial? I

hope he plays the good judge and gets the facts out.


We’ve got a lot to get to tonight. Stay with us.




TRUMP: The impeachment is a big hoax. It’s become a laughingstock all over

the world. There was nothing done wrong.


The two articles that were sent are not even serious. And, by the way,

they’re not a crime.




MATTHEWS: There is nothing done wrong. Did you hear that from the

president? Nothing was done wrong.


And that was President Trump just last week on what he expected from the

Senate impeachment trial, apparently nothing.


The president and his Republican allies have repeatedly argued that he did

not break the law. Here it comes.


But, today, a nonpartisan government watchdog says the Trump administration

broke the law in freezing millions of dollars of U.S. aid, military aid, to



In a decision released today, the Government Accountability Office, a

nonpartisan agency that reports to the Congress, said: “Faithful execution

of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy

priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law”


In a statement, the Office of Budget – an Office of Budget – Management

and Budget spokesperson said: “We disagree with GAO’s opinion. OMB uses its

apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent” –

catch this – “consistent with the president’s priorities and with the



In other words, it’s up to the president where money gets spent.


I’m joined right now by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who

requested the GAO look into the withholding of aid the last month.


Thank you, Senator, for doing this.


First of all, what is the implication, as you see it, of the fact that the

president broke the law here?


SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Well, it’s good to be with you.


This is a big deal, because, as you know, the Government Accountability

Office is a nonpartisan independent entity. And they came down with a

blockbuster decision, beyond a doubt that the president’s administration

violated the law when they withheld money from Ukraine.


That was an illegal act. And we also know from public evidence that it was

President Trump himself who gave the order to the agencies to withhold

those funds.


So, he ordered his agencies to commit an illegal act as part of his overall

scheme with respect to Ukraine. So this is a very, very big deal.


It’s not Democrats saying it. It’s not Republican saying it. It’s an

independent, nonpartisan entity saying it.


MATTHEWS: In the Senate, where you’re going to be a juror – in fact, you

have been sworn in as a juror.




MATTHEWS: Will it have an impact on your Republican colleagues, the fact

that the law has been broken by the president in the act that he has been

impeached for?


VAN HOLLEN: Well, it should.


I mean, you would think that law-breaking is something that Republican

senators would agree was a bad thing. And this was a law broken as part of

the president’s overall abuse of power.


It just showed he was willing to violate the law here and there in order to

accomplish his overall goal of trying to pressure the government of Ukraine

to involve itself in the election for him.


So, I don’t know. But the first question is the one you have been talking

about. The first test for our Republican colleagues before we get to the

final verdict, which I will wait to see all the evidence before rendering a

final decision – the first test is whether they will support the calling

of fact witnesses and relevant documents, because you cannot have a fair

trial without that.


MATTHEWS: Well, today, Senate minority leader, Democratic Leader Chuck

Schumer of New York, said the GAO decision and the revelations from Lev

Parnas strengthens Democrats’ push for witnesses.


In his interview with my colleague Rachel Maddow, Parnas said former

National Security Adviser John Bolton would be a key witness.




PARNAS: Zelensky was supposed to make another announcement, and that didn’t

happen. And that’s when Bolton, Secretary Bolton, went over there. And I

think he has a lot to say.


I know Mr. Bolton was definitely involved in the loop because of the firing

of Marie Yovanovitch, also his interactions with Rudy Giuliani. They

started butting heads.


MADDOW: But you believe he knows what the administration was pressuring

Ukraine to do?


PARNAS: Bolton?




PARNAS: A hundred percent.




MATTHEWS: You know, what would it be like to have him testifying to you

guys in the Senate, you jurors, I mean, actually a regular – I mean, he

seems real, this guy.


VAN HOLLEN: No, he does.


I got to tell you, Chris, I watched that whole interview with Rachel last

night, and my jaw just dropped. I went, oh, my God.


And after seeing that, it would be a gross dereliction of their

constitutional duty for Republicans to say, we can’t call any additional



It’s not unusual at a trial to have new information and new evidence and

documents that are important to come forward.


And the House managers will have to decide whether they want to call him as

one of the witnesses.




VAN HOLLEN: But the bigger test is going to be Republican senators.


Bolton, Mulvaney – President Trump back on December 3 said he wanted Mick

Mulvaney to testify at this trial.




VAN HOLLEN: All of a sudden, his lawyers are telling him, no, that’s way

too dangerous, if Mick Mulvaney is sworn in under penalty of perjury.


MATTHEWS: It reminds me of Valachi opening up the books on the mob, and you

don’t want to hear from the guy? He’s like in this witness protection. You

don’t want to talk to the guy?


Anyway, today, senators took an oath to render impartial justice as jurors

in the Senate trial.


Last night, Texas Senator Ted Cruz argued this impeachment is a partisan





SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): I don’t know if there’s going to be 51 senators to

bring witnesses in or not. I think there’s plenty already to reject these

ridiculous articles of impeachment.


But if they are going to bring witnesses in, we’re not going to do what the

House did of a one-sided show trial. And I think it should be at a bare

minimum one for one.


So, if the prosecution brings a witness, if they bring John Bolton, then

President Trump can bring a witness. He can bring in Hunter Biden.




MATTHEWS: What do you think of this? Because I heard about this from a

senator the other night, a Democratic senator, the word out that Mitch may

– Mitch McConnell may figure out, OK, you guys want witnesses? I will give

you four or five, two of mine, two of yours.


Well, I went the Bidens. You – I will give you Mick Mulvaney and John



Suppose you’re confronted with a choice like that. Would you take the whole



VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, we all know that Joe Biden, that whole request is a

red herring when it comes to who had knowledge about President Trump’s

decision with respect to withholding aid to the Ukraine.


MATTHEWS: Yes, but he was the president’s target.


VAN HOLLEN: So, yes, but what’s at stake here in the articles of

impeachment, obviously, is his abuse of power.




VAN HOLLEN: But, look, if Mitch McConnell and Republicans want to call Joe

Biden, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.




VAN HOLLEN: But there is a big difference between relevant fact witnesses,

which is what we have asked for, Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, and these

other ones.




MATTHEWS: If you sat on the other side of the aisle, wouldn’t you want to

say – wouldn’t you want to ask Senator Biden, just to give him a chance to

clear himself, did you ever talk to your son about taking that contract

with Burisma? Did you have anything to do with him doing it? Did you ever

tell him not to do it?


Did you ever get a – did he ever call you and ask you to do a favor for

it? These seem to be relevant questions, germane.


VAN HOLLEN: Look, it’s all – it’s a total sideshow and distraction, as you



MATTHEWS: But it’s not entirely, because this whole thing is the Republican

attempt to smear the Bidens.


You have to say, were they fairly going after them or unfairly going after

them? I think the president was unfair, because he was saying, all I want

is an announcement from the president of Ukraine we’re investigating the



He didn’t want the truth.




So – right. What the president wanted was to withhold taxpayer dollars

that Ukraine needed, right, in order to try to get them to interfere –

interfere on his behalf.


Look, with respect to witnesses, if Republicans get to the point where

they’re willing to get relevant fact witnesses and documents, then let’s

have a conversation.




VAN HOLLEN: McConnell has been the one who is stonewalling.


And right now, they have been conspiring with the president to rig the

trial. They shouldn’t be doing that.


MATTHEWS: I agree.


VAN HOLLEN: That is a violation of the oath they took today.


MATTHEWS: Is he going to get away with it?


VAN HOLLEN: Who’s that?


MATTHEWS: Mitch, who always seems to get away with it.


VAN HOLLEN: The issue – the issue is not going to be how Mitch votes. It’s

going to be how some of the other Republican senators vote.




VAN HOLLEN: And their public will hold them accountable in a lot of these



And they will be asked, why did you vote to conspire with the president,

rig the trial, and deny the American people a fair hearing with all the



MATTHEWS: OK. Well, I’m betting on – I’m hoping for Lamar Alexander. I’m

hoping for Murkowski. I’m hoping for Mitt. I think you got three maybe

there, and maybe Collins now, as of today. We will get to Collins later on

the show.


VAN HOLLEN: We will watch them very closely, Chris.


MATTHEWS: Thank you. You know these guys better than I do.


Thank you. Chris Van Hollen, my senator.


VAN HOLLEN: Thank you. Great to be here.


MATTHEWS: Up next: The stage is set for what shaping up to be a real fight

over witnesses and documents in the next couple days.


How many, if any, Republican senators will put their oath of impartiality

ahead of their party loyalty, actually their loyalty to Donald Trump?


You’re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.


With the impeachment trial now under way, really, all eyes are on a quintet

of Republicans, five of them who could determine whether the Senate hears

new witnesses or not.


It’s a topic that’s become increasingly relevant with John Bolton’s

willingness to testify and that trove of documents just released from Lev

about – Lev Parnas.


And, this evening, Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins came the

closest she’s ever been to saying she should vote yes for new witnesses.


In a statement put out this evening, Collins said: “While I need to hear

the case argued and the questions answered, I tend to believe having

additional information would be helpful. It is likely I would support a

motion to call witnesses at this point in the trial, just as I did in



That would be the Clinton trial.


Collins said she decided to clarify her statement due to – quote – “a lot

of mischaracterization and misunderstanding about my position.”


Well, this came after she faced backlash yesterday for questioning why the

Parnas evidence was released so late by the House, even after reporters

told her that the information had only been recently made available by the

courts, who have been holding it.


This puts Collins much closer on his – to the position of Utah Senator

Mitt Romney, who has explicitly said that he’d likely want to hear from

Bolton and vote for that, in fact.


That’s two out of the four Republican votes Democrats need to call

witnesses. They got 47 Democrats. They need 51 altogether, four Republicans



Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, who’s retiring, have

said they’re open to hearing from witnesses.


There’s also speculation about vulnerable Republican Senator Cory Gardner,

who’s consistently refused to answer questions about where he stands.


Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he’d rather not extend the trial by

having witnesses at all. But that’s not what he argued during Clinton’s



Wait until you catch the disconnect here between the old Mitch and the new

Mitch. I like the old Mitch.


That’s up next.




MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.


Many Senate Republicans have made it clear that they want this trial to be

as short as possible. That’s not what Mitch McConnell said, by the way,

back in 1999.




SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): There have been 15 impeachments in the history

of this country. Two of them were cut short by resignations. In the other

13 impeachments, they were witnesses. It’s not unusual to have a witness in

a trial.


It’s certainly not unusual to have a witness in an impeachment trial.




MATTHEWS: Well, I’m joined right now Michael Steele, former RNC chair, and

Nadeam Elshami, former chief of staff to Nancy Pelosi and former spokesman

– well, you have done everything – for Dick Durbin.


He wanted to know all the nitty-gritty of Bill Clinton’s malfeasance. He

wanted to get more. Let’s talk more about Monica. He liked lots of

witnesses, lots of information. Not this time.




MATTHEWS: He wants a shorty.


ELSHAMI: He wants to control the process. He wants to put this under the

rug and move on.


Look, his – this is not going to change until his senators, those four or

five senators that you have talked about, come to him and say, Senator,

would need this for our reelection.


And they’re starting to feel the heat. And maybe Senator Alexander, because

of his…


MATTHEWS: He wants it because he’s got values.


ELSHAMI: That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right.


But you have senators like Paul, Senator Paul, threatening…




MATTHEWS: Why is – what’s your hunch about why Rand Paul, who’s a real

independent – he’s a libertarian – why has he become the hatchet man for

the president in making sure he’s going to punish every Republican who

votes for witnesses?


MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, this is kind of makeup for

swinging out there on the whole war thing with Iran.




STEELE: So, this is – now we’re swinging it back the other way. So I’m

going to stand and defend the president on this idea of not having

witnesses come to the table, whereas, last week, he was out there slamming

the president for his ventures into Iran.


So, folks should see the politics here for what it is. None of this is

being taken seriously by Republicans at this point. I think, to your point,

the sooner we get it done, the better. It is sort of huddling together to

protect the clan, as it were, keep it – protect everyone inside the room.


And so it’s going to be important if a Murkowski or a Collins, a Lamar

Alexander comes and says that this is bigger than what you think it is, and

we need to have the witnesses. We need it for our own protection at home.




STEELE: But I think we need it for the country as well.


MATTHEWS: Well, I want to be fair.


I think a couple of the guys who’ve come forward, men in these cases, Mitt

Romney and Lamar, I think, is going to…




MATTHEWS: He’s not just worried about – I know, it’s a partisan comment,

you just think they’re only going to save their butts.


Some actually have consciences, I think Mitt Romney flirts with greatness,

he doesn’t get there. He likes to get around the edge. Like in this case, I

think he will push for witnesses. Will he push other members to get the

four we need or three we might need?



know. It’s too early to tell right now. But I think what the senators are

grappling with is an oath to President Trump or an oath to the

Constitution. I think that’s –


MATTHEWS: I agree with you. Well said. This morning, a CNN reporter got an

unexpected response from Arizona Republican Senator Martha McSally when he

dared to ask her about whether we need new evidence, here it goes.




REPORTER: Should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the

impeachment trial?


SEN. MARTHA MCSALLY (R-AZ): Man, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to



REPORTER: You’re not going to comment?


MCSALLY: You’re a liberal hack.




MATTHEWS: Ha! Well, shortly after that, McSally doubled down on her

comments about the so-called liberal hack, tweeting at the reporter that

you are a liberal hack. McSally may have been hoping to rile up Trump’s

base there because she’s out there fundraising off the comments she made to

that reporter.


The Trump campaign war room tweeted, three cheers for Martha McSally,

donate now. What do you make of this?


ELSHAMI: One word, re-election. She is worried –


MATTHEWS: She’s never been elected, though.


ELSHAMI: But she’s worried.


MATTHEWS: She’s appointed.


ELSHAMI: Yes, appointed, that’s right. So she is worried. She is worried

about 2020. So, she’s trying exactly that.


MATTHEWS: Do you think she picked a fight with that reporter? That was a

reasonable question. He wasn’t snarky.


ELSHAMI: No, absolutely not.


STEELE: I think it’s certainly behavior unbecoming for sure. Look, you are

an elected official, more importantly, are you a United States senator.


And so, what this says to me is that senators like McSally feel that they

need to show their behinds like Donald Trump does every day and get down in

the ugly and think that that’s going to be, somehow cool and keeps their

base tight to them.




STEELE: But your reelection is in trouble – rather, your election is in

trouble. She knows it. So, this is going to fund raise off it. It’s going

to – you know, there is applause back in very small corners, but the

broader electorate she has to face this November when her opponent is

playing this videotape over and over again and saying, is this really what

we want in Washington?




STEELE: What we want in Washington?


These folks aren’t thinking about what Trump does to them longer term. And

they’re all right in the moment. They’re feeling all the juices.


MATTHEWS: Arizona is not a wild state. There are a lot of retirees there.

There are people worried about fiscal responsibilities, things that maybe

liberals don’t care about, but they don’t like this kind of behavior.


ELSHAMI: Absolutely not. But this is a historical moment in our country. I

agree with Michael. You know, if you are a United States senator, you have

to be thinking what you are saying, not just to your voters, but, you know,

50 years from now what are they going to say about you?


MATTHEWS: I don’t think your old boss, Nancy Pelosi, would say, I’m not

talking to you right wing hack. She’d probably say I’m not talking.


Anyway, Michael Steele, thank you, and Nadeam Elshami.


Up next, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will play an essential

role, or will he? Is he just going to be there as a potted plant or is he

going to be a good judge? Clarifying just what he could, what we should and

should not expect from Roberts next on HARDBALL.


We’re going to figure this guy out, a little prediction, will he be the big

star of this or not?






JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE: Judges and justices are servants

of the law, not the other way around. Judges are life umpires. Umpires

don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is

critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules but it is a limited

role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.




MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.


Earlier today, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped into his role as a

presiding officer. There he is, of the impeachment trial of President

Trump. In that capacity, according to the Senate’s rules and impeachment,

they shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting

for the purpose of trying an impeachment.


And during the trial, according to those same rules, he will have the power

to, quote, rule on all questions of everyday, including but not limited to

questions of relevancy and materiality and redundancy of evidence and

incidental questions, unless some member asks to overrule a justice. In a

few days, we’ll see what kind of justice, what kind of judge the chief

justice will choose to be.


We are joined by Caroline Fredrickson, former president of the American

Constitutional Society, and Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for “USA



So, there are questions of law, precedent, constitutional and, of course,

political here. In light, as a student of John Roberts, the chief justice,

how much do you think he will play the traditional role of judge? Will he

say, if Adam Schiff, the chief manager says, I’d like to bring in evidence

now some documents involving Mr. Lev Parnas that had just been released to

the public, I’d like bring them into evidence, I’d like to have Mr. Parnas

come into this hearing. What does the chief justice have the liberty to

decide at that point? He says I want to bring a witness in right now, to

get this information to the jurors?



Well, the state rules make it clear that he has the power to admit

evidence. He can actually issue subpoena. He has an extraordinary amount of

power under the way the proceedings are constructed.


The Senate can overrule him. But I think if that were to happen, well,

actually, I don’t think it’s going to happen, because I think you’ll have

senators like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and the others think about

what that will mean for their constituents if they vote to overrule this

chief justice on a vote so important as to whether to admit evidence that’s

clearly relevant.


MATTHEWS: So he can make the first call?






FREDRICKSON: I think it would be surprising if he chose to exert those

powers. I think he would say, let’s have a vote on the Senate on whether to

allow these witnesses to come in. Up to him, right, he has the power to do

that. But he follows the example that Justice Rehnquist, that Chief Justice

Rehnquist did in the Clinton impeachment, he would see his role as

minimalist, not maximalist.


FREDRICKSON: He could certainly do that, but I think that would be such a

punt in this case. In the Clinton impeachment, remember, there was a

general agreement among the managers of how to proceed. In this case, we

clearly don’t have that. We have all sorts of new evidence that’s come



He has also been very outspoken in defending the independence of the

judiciary, including his annual report again this year, talking about how

important it is that judges provide equal justice under law. I mean, what

could be a better example of him doing than issuing a ruling on evidence

that has come forward that is clearly relevant and incredibly material to

the exact issue being considered by the Senate.


PAGE: So, we’ll see if he chooses to do that. I’ll tell you, there’s one

thing that I think the Founders had in mind when they made the chief

justice the person who would preside over impeachment trial, and that was

to underscore kind of the importance, the solemnity of this – of this

exercise, and I think that actually happened today.


You know, we’ve had this heated ferocious debate over impeachment that

makes it seem like a sporting event, but when we saw those articles brought

over from the House and the Senate, and we saw the chief justice come in

and swear in the senators, I think it took on a bigger moment than it’s had

the last few weeks.


FREDRICKSON: And that’s really why I think we should expect the chief

justice, we should certainly hope that the chief justice lives up to the

oath that he also took, which is to do impartial justice.


MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a big question, it’s not a legal question as to

what’s constitutional. It has to do with philosophy. I think a real

conservative, it’s not a right winger, or reactionary, a true conservative,

maybe in the British sense, is someone who wants to keep the society

together, because that’s the chief goal of a conservative. Keep things

together, don’t let society come in to division, or civil wars or

fragmentation, or massive bitterness, try to bring the country and hold it



What’s more unifying in this country, a trial that continues to get some

evidence, or they slam the door with no evidence coming in and no

witnesses? Is that going to keep the country united?


PAGE: I think, no. I mean, I think this is likely to divide the country no

matter what, but if the Senate proceeds in a way that doesn’t allow this

new evidence that has come forward since the House vote last month, I think

there will be forever be questions –




PAGE: – about what they could have learned had they allow the witnesses.


FREDRICKSON: Well, and I think we’ve already had Mitch McConnell announce

that the proceedings already rigged. That he’s already in the thank for –


MATTHEWS: That he’s rigging them.


FREDRICKSON: That he’s rigging them. Right. And, you know, again, this is

why I go back to – you know, certainly my hope, but a demand I think of

the chief justice that he actually make sure that it’s not a rigged



MATTHEWS: If he makes the first call and says, OK, let’s bring in – Mr.

Schiff, bring in your first witness, we’re not going to follow the rules

set by Mitch McConnell which says, we’re going to wait to all the

discussion, all the going back and forth, after all that’s done, arguments,

then we’ll decide whether to bring witnesses in. But suppose the judge

says, no, we’re not going to wait from the end, we’re going to have

witnesses from the beginning, f you want to overrule me, go ahead, is that



FREDRICKSON: Well, absolutely. I mean, he has plenary – I think the rule

set out, he has really plenary authority to determine the direction of the

proceedings, and whether or not to admit evidence, whether or not to have

witnesses, whether he can subpoena himself. It’s sort of implies in the way

those rules are written.


So, certainly, that could be very appropriate. I mean, there is so much new

evidence that what a sham it will be if that’s not heard.


MATTHEWS: Yes, here’s a political question, a journalist question. How do

you close the door when the floodgates are already open? This Parnas thing

last night with Rachel Maddow, I mean, imagine that happens on the Senate

floor. I mean, it’s incredible what would have been the reaction.


PAGE: You know, even if the Senate decides to not have witnesses, we’re

going to continue to hear from these people, from Lev Parnas, from John

Bolton. The story is – more of this story is going to come out. It’s

coming out in a remarkable way now that builds the case that Democrats

started to build and comes up with more and more evidence about the

president’s own involvement.


MATTHEWS: I think nobody can deny that there’s a cabal here, to squeeze the

new president of Ukraine for some kind of dirt on Joe Biden. The only

question is, you have to answer yourself, is that impeachable? Because the

facts are plenary, they’re all over the place.


Thank you, Caroline Fredrickson. Thank you, Susan, as always. I’ll see you

soon. I see Susan all the time. She’s great.


Up next, what did Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders actually show us when

they thought we couldn’t hear them less, Wednesday, two nights ago? It’s

always better what they say when they don’t think you’re listening.


You’re watching HARDBALL.




MATTHEWS: Politicians are people first. The best of them have pride in

their words, pride in what is said about them by people they respect.


Two nights ago, we saw Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders try to downplay

their dispute over what he told her or didn’t tell her two years ago, that

a woman can’t beat Donald Trump in 2020.


Well, that might have been the end of it. It wasn’t.


Following the debate, with the stage microphones killed, we heard through

another mic her personal indignation and Bernie Sanders’ retort in kind.





a liar on national TV.




WARREN: I think you called me a liar on national TV.


SANDERS: No, let’s not do it right now. You want to have that discussion,

we’ll have that discussion.


WARREN: Anytime.


SANDERS: You called me a liar. You told me – all right, let’s not do it



TOM STEYER (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t want to get in the middle.

I just want to say hi, Bernie.


SANDERS: Yes, good, OK.




MATTHEWS: Well, the point is, neither chose to make this a scene in their

two-hour debate on television. Both seemed well to make that claim and move

on, but that was politics. Both thought they had bigger fish to fry on

television. Besides, Iowa voters are celebrated to penalizing presidential

candidates they see going negative.


But as the great senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put

it, we are we are entitled to our opinions, but not to our own facts. And

this fight between Senators Warren and Sanders is not over candidate’s

opinion, it’s over facts. Senator Warren told people that Senator Sanders

said a woman can’t be elected in 2020.


On Tuesday night, before a huge debate audience, he denied ever saying any

such a thing. It strikes me based upon record (ph) between the two

afterward that she didn’t expect this, didn’t expert her colleague to make

such a sharp denial, to the point of her words, of calling her a liar on

national television. Well, I suspect the reason is she believes Senator

Sanders said what she said he did, and he would when forced to confront it

face-to-face confess to it. Senator Sanders said, all this is being driven

by, as he put it Wednesday night, some of the media. Well, that’s not what

it looked like or said it like when both thought the mic was off.


That’s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.


“ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts right now.







Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC.  All materials herein are

protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,

distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the

prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter

or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the